Breaking the Heart of the Universe

[Roger]

There's a lot going on in here.  I'll try to add some points which I think are relevant:

1.  In the very second line of the "Fantasy Heartbreakers" essay, we get:

So combine this with the facts that many would-be hopeful role-playing games are fantasy, or "fantasy" anyway

And by this it is meant, I believe, that these games are not really trying to emulate the fantasy genre.  They're trying to emulate Dungeons and Dragons.  They are a simulation of a simulation, to get a bit Baudrillardian.

As others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an archetypical SF game with such an overwhelming presence in the genre, the way D&D is to its.  And even if there is, no one seems interested in finding it.  Everyone is too busy pointing out that in 1983, Foo Games published a dozen copies of Barsoomian Babes, which was swell.

This may or may not be a reflection on the impact Tolkein has had on the literary fantasy genre.  If the vast majority of written fantasy consists of footnotes to Tolkein, perhaps it should not be surprising that there are many FRPGs which are little more than footnotes to Gygax.

2.  The emphasis on character creation, world creation, equipment creation, etc etc in Traveller and others leads me to think that a lot of the people who 'played' these games never quite managed to make it to the table at all.  There's no small amount of this on the FRPG side of the fence, of course, but I think it's been especially embraced with SF games.  There is so much setting and mechanics that not having any players is hardly a drawback at all.

3.  While we're sticking games into Heartbreaker genre categories, there's one gorilla I think everyone has missed:  Call of Cthulhu, and the horror RPG genre.  Could be worth some consideration.

4.  Perhaps this is the true genius of the d20 licensing concept.  Instead of writing games which are sorta kinda like D&D, but with a difference, people can now publish games which are exactly D&D, but with some differences.  



Cheers,
Roger

[contracycle]

Hmm, perhaps ill-advisedly I'm going to throw in some more cents.  The first thing I want to tackle is "what SF is" and whether it is relevant.

I strongly disagree with the notion that SF is just human stories in which the technology is merely colour.  That is not so IMO; Marco is quite right to say that they lend grandeur and kick and inspiration to the setting.  They are important parts of the setting.  IMO, it is precisely the choice to make such elements unimportant or off-stage that makes SFRPG so poor.

Some support for my poisition:

   "Science Fiction is that class of prose narrative treating of a situation that could not arise in the world we know, but which is hypothesized on the basis of some innovation in science or technology, or pseudo-technology, whether human or extra-terrestrial in origin. "
Kingsly Amis,    New Maps Of Hell (London, 1960)

   "Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions...     That branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings. "
Isaac Asimov    (1952)

   "The touchstone for scientific fiction, then, is that it describes an imaginary invention or discovery in the natural sciences. The most serious pieces of this fiction arise from speculation about what may happen if science makes an extraordinary discovery. The romance is an attempt to anticipate this discovery and its impact upon society, and to foresee how mankind may adjust to the new condition. "
James O. Bailey,    Pilgrims Through Space and Time (New York, 1947)

"SF is a controlled way to think and dream about the future. An integration of the mood and attitude of science (the objective universe) with the fears and hopes that spring from the unconscious. Anything that turns you and your social context, the social you, inside out. Nightmares and visions, always outlined by the barely possible"
Gregory Benford

"Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together."
Ray Bradbury


I was very surprised to see Ron say that we should not enagage in a discussion of what SF is; IMO that lies at the heart of the problem.  In a manner directly analogous to Ron's discussion of the differences between the fantasy genre as it appears today and the sword and sorcery genre proper, we have to distinguish IMO between science fiction and science fantasy in order to cut through the confusion.

Games and novels which start from assumption that Greyorm cites, that the dilemmas faces the protagonists are common dilemmas that could take  place in any setting, and to which the science part of the fiction is largely irrelevant, is IMO 100% wrong.  If the science is not real, and the science does not have impact, then it is science fantasy and operates by the rules for fantasy, not SF.  The science in SF is not colour, it is Setting and Situation.  Of course there must be human conflict, consequences, all the structure of Story that are independant of setting for this to work as an actuial entertainment - but without some sort of scientific exploration being carried out at the same time, without some technical IMPACT on those humans that is present because of the science component, it is simply not SF.  Not at all.

I think the situation with derivative works for SF is not quite the same as it is for Fantasy.  As Ron pointed ou in his criticism of the genre, quite a lot of modern fantasy is derivative of works that accord with gaming presumptions about fantasy, rather than those that accorded with its sword and sorcery precursor, to the point that novellisations of fantasy game worlds are quite common.  I don't think this same situation applies to SF - there are two derivative sources, the first being pop-SF as per Trek, and the second being precursor RPG's in general, not SF RPG's specifically.  So I dno;t hink the same relationship between prior RPG and current RPG will apply to SF as it does to fantasy.  That is, I think many of them are still doing D&D in space in terms of their RPG derived influences, with the concomitant concentration on combat mechanics at the expense of the SF-derived Big Idea.  IMO heartbreaker does legitimately describe some SF RPG's, but not a large quantity, because most have not even had any clear Big Idea in the first place.

Blue Planet qualifies exactly IMO - it was a game I wanted to love.  But it has no mode of play that makes use of its uniqueness, and the mode of play it offers by default is almost straight Cyberpunk.

As for the term itself, Marco if you have a real problem with this publish a standard rant and be done.  Alternatively, if you feel the term is "commonly" used incorrectly, then use it correctly yourself and correct those who do not.  I point out its hardly in common circulation, being Forge coinage.

Anyway, think the attmept to reconcile heartbreakerness with exactly the same terms as apply in fantasy are doomed to confusion.  Firtly, quite a lot of the material being discussed is actually fantasy anyway, and secondly because the origin of influences are rather different.  I do not think there is a grand daddy of a space game that all others emulate that way there is in Fantasy - but I do think that much the same error occurs with reference to and from much TV SF.

[Caldis]

The last couple posts really brought something out to me.  The problem with sci-fi role playing isnt that people are looking back to how it was done before and using that despite it's inappropriateness.   The problem is that they are designing for every option and in sci-fi the options are virtually limitless.  

This works great for the person who has the time, inclination, and ability to fashion a great game out of the tool kit that has been provided if not you get my first run in with Skyrealms of Jorune, railroaded plots or nonsensical encounters from a random table.

[Marco]

Gareth,

1. I think your 'cents' are well worth the price.

Leaving aside my agreement that science is a key attribute of SF, I think you have made an excellent point that the mechanical source for most 70's and 80's games wasn't Traveler so much as D&D (and other precursor games--not, as you say, specifically SFRPGs).

I don't know the mechanics for most of those games but I do know that although Traveler was a strong diversion from D&D in terms of basic mechanics, in concept it was very traditional. I suspect that many of the games on the list owe more to other RPG's than Traveler.

2. This:

As for the term itself, Marco if you have a real problem with this publish a standard rant and be done.  Alternatively, if you feel the term is "commonly" used incorrectly, then use it correctly yourself and correct those who do not.  I point out its hardly in common circulation, being Forge coinage.

I think I am doing this (the second one). The term is commonly misused where I hang out--RPG.net--by people who have great sympathies for The Forge and, I would think, general agreement with this essay.

-Marco

[Storn]

Thanks Contra, for going much quicker to the heart of the matter that I was trying to say.  I think the quotes you supplied are excellent and back up what I was feeling about scifi roleplaying games.

Also.  I agree, there is no standard for scifi, so Heartbreaking might be a slippery term in this instance.  Or has you put it; 'not in large quanity'. Traveller doesn't equate to D&D in terms of impact on its genre, IMO.

[Halzebier]

I do know that a game that doesn't give me combat options (mainly ship-to-ship but personal as well, there is some in the book), the ability to make some aliens that are more or less human but may have their quirks, and the ability to play 'anyone' (there are nobles, street kids, military commanders, rebels, etc.) will lock me out of that universe.

A while back, there was a big flamewar on rec.games.frp.misc over whether FUDGE should be considered an RPG or an RPG toolkit...

I guess that some people expect or prefer strongly focussed games (e.g.  MLWM) while others want wide open games (e.g. GURPS).

The criticisms levelled at these preferences/games are "That's limiting" and "That's ouija board gaming", respectively. There may be some truth to each point of view, but it seems to me that we're getting bogged down in a debate on the merits of focussed vs. 'universal' RPGs (though arguably, this does have something to do with the topic -- I do have the impression that many SFRPGs lean towards the 'uinversal' end of the spectrum).

Regards,

Hal

[daMoose_Neo]

Agreed that Focus vs Freedom is an issue with SF games.

Science FICTION, like the literature, deserves a more focused game and system. I look at Contra's quotes and see that true scifi, from the POV of some of its most illustrious authors, uses the technology to address something specific about us and where we are going. The technology in Fiction isn't backdrop or color, its almost an additional character on stage. Consider the Outer Limits TV series on the Sci-Fi channel. I'm more familiar with the newer series myself, though I've seen some of the older ones. Using the given coolness of the week, it asks something of us. Without that, the show couldn't ask the question.

Given we could transverse huge distances in space by cloning ourselves into data, would we have the heart to kill the now obsolete template? Thats one episode- teleporter technology that "faxed" people through the stars with the limitation it generated a second person. To "Balance the Equation", the original template must be destroyed to keep from having multiple people living the same life. In the show, one fax goes wrong and supposidly doesn't send. Come to find out it DID send, and there were now two of the person who was sent and the operator was forced to kill the person still at the station to "balance the equation".
Thus, the technology was at the front of the show, but so were the moral implications- is it okay to kill a clone, and in what situations is it okay to kill another human for a "greater good"?

Science FANTASY, is your D&D in space. You could just as easily shift Star Wars to a D&D styled campaign. Death Star? Floating castle. Lightsabres? Mystic swords. The Force? Magic. X-Wings? Fighter Dragons or other devices. That Outer Limits episode? It'd be harder to do so. After all, if we're relying on Magic, then why not develop a spell that doesn't clone a person to teleport them? D&D has a plain Teleport spell, use that!
Fantasy is the ability to live out in the world or universe of your choice. Folks who wish this should also realize there will be considerable differences. Being a Bantha Stall cleaner means the real odds of you meeting a Jedi are slim to none. Sure, the GM can throw in a contrived excuse or extremly lucky situation, but otherwise why would a Jedi want anything to do with a Bantha Stall mucker?

So, I'd argue that any game calling itself Science FICTION that lets you live as a Bantha Stall mucker and goes into great detail is on such is FANTASY, not Fiction. Anyone who buys it on the FICTION premise, for whatever little diamond in the rough they see ("Ohh! Technical charts for devices! This'll help me create the stuff I need for that session idea I had for X thought!") only to find it helps you develop anti-grav wagons for hauling bigger and bigger loads of Bantha doo-doo and is, in reality a FANTASY, has a right to be Heartbroken and call it a heartbreaker. If it says "Live as a Bantha Keeper!" however, then you have no reason to believe it'll allow you address, in system and in detail, situations where the issues are the moral, ethical, and higher questions regarding the cloning of a 2000 year old specimen who may or may not have been a diety.

[John Kim]

All that said, I'd say Aurora is a heartbreaker.  It broke mine, anyway.

Ultimately, Aurora is the same damn thing as everything else: a straight-up "now we get in our spaceships or go down on the planet" sort of thing.  The novelty of Aurora lies exclusively, so far as I can tell, in the alien designs (setting aside mechanics which I can't discuss because I'm really bad on the history of mechanics).  And are these really new?

Well, to be sure, the biology of these alien beings is well thought-out.  But look at their cultures.  What's really new here?  Aurora really made a serious stab at not creating monocultures, but when push comes to shove that's exactly what happened.

OK, I believe you here, and yet I don't see how it changes the point.  What I said is that it doesn't match Bryans' characterization.  The aliens might be ultimately monocultural, but none of them are one of bug-eyed-monster / disguised-human-culture / bipedal-Earth-animal.  So, objectively, that point is flat-out wrong.  Also, it is not particularly Traveller-derived in mechanics or setting.  About the most you can say is that it has a mildly crunchy combat system, but at least in mechanics it doesn't seem miniatures-derived to me.  

Now, I agree with you, that Aurora seems pretty directionless as far as adventures.  It doesn't provide guidance for interesting situations, which is a significant failure on its part.  Thus, I'm not surprised that in play for some it devolved down to a dull "beam down", "welcome to my world" routine.  Aside from the aliens and the failure dice mechanic, there is no real innovation -- though I think those two are worthy of note.  

Obviously, there are games of limited innovation, there are directionless games, and there are games which are failures.  I'm not denying that Aurora was a disappointment to you.  If we toss aside all of the specific points and just define heartbreaker as "a game of limited innovation which isn't very successful" or perhaps "a game which someone found disappointing", then sure, I'd agree with that.

[clehrich]

OK, I believe you here, and yet I don't see how it changes the point.  What I said is that it doesn't match Bryans' characterization.  The aliens might be ultimately monocultural, but none of them are one of bug-eyed-monster / disguised-human-culture / bipedal-Earth-animal.  So, objectively, that point is flat-out wrong.  Also, it is not particularly Traveller-derived in mechanics or setting.  About the most you can say is that it has a mildly crunchy combat system, but at least in mechanics it doesn't seem miniatures-derived to me.  

Now, I agree with you, that Aurora seems pretty directionless as far as adventures.  It doesn't provide guidance for interesting situations, which is a significant failure on its part.  Thus, I'm not surprised that in play for some it devolved down to a dull "beam down", "welcome to my world" routine.  Aside from the aliens and the failure dice mechanic, there is no real innovation -- though I think those two are worthy of note.

Then surely what needs to happen in the discussion is to refine Bryan's points?  Not that we've heard from him in a while, but...

1. Alien (or other) monocultures
2. "Beam down and deal with a situation in a box"
3. "Welcome to my world"

Might these be typical qualities of the heartbreaker?  It's been a long time since I read Traveller; does any of this fit that model?  If not, where does it come from -- just from Star Trek and the like?  Does this have a game model that's being reiterated?

[Caldis]

Science FICTION, like the literature, deserves a more focused game and system. I look at Contra's quotes and see that true scifi, from the POV of some of its most illustrious authors, uses the technology to address something specific about us and where we are going.

I dont for a second believe this is universal of science fiction any more than it is of fantasy or any other genre.  All fiction is about human beings and how they deal with existence, whether it's set in the mythical world of Middle Earth or on the desert planet Arrakis.  Both DESERVE to be treated with the same degree of focus from a game system and as long as we respect simulationism and gamism as valid forms of play then we can not say that games of a specific genre require a focus on one type of play.
I know I for one love a great space battle game, Fasa's Star Trek provided that for me.

[Marco]

1. Alien (or other) monocultures
2. "Beam down and deal with a situation in a box"
3. "Welcome to my world"

Might these be typical qualities of the heartbreaker?  It's been a long time since I read Traveller; does any of this fit that model?  If not, where does it come from -- just from Star Trek and the like?  Does this have a game model that's being reiterated?

Star Trek, Star Wars, Known Space, and a whole host of other science fiction and space-opera stories that I've read (Mote in God's Eye, The Forever War, Starship Troopers, and others would qualify, IIRC ... the Stainless Steel Rat, too, I think).

Of course you can argue the question of focus--does Star Trek focus on the funny-headed alien? IMO No. Nor did most of the fiction. But that's not really what's being argued here. What's being argued is the presence of the space-opera elements makes the game a Heartbreaker (a lot of those titles had quite a bit of shootin' too, IIRC).

-Marco

[contracycle]

But that's not really what's being argued here. What's being argued is the presence of the space-opera elements makes the game a Heartbreaker (a lot of those titles had quite a bit of shootin' too, IIRC).

I really do not think this is helping.  There is not one thing being argued here - there are people discussing their views.  If you object to a view, then please point to whose view you are objecting rather than just saying "here".  The issue of whether or not the hHB classification is strictly appropriate is not a big deal IMO.

If we are going to discuss the HB concept in relation to SF, then lets have some argued propositions.   Mine are: Blue Planet and 2300AD.  I've been trying to think of more but have not been able to because the vast majority are science fantasy, really.

I've discussed BP already.  Any counterpoints?

2300AD was an offshoot of traveller set in an earlier era, just after the developement of interstellar travel.  It was a much more bounded, purposeful game than Traveller IMO.  It had genuinely interesting aliens, 4 or 5 or so, and apart from the totally weird ones, neither of the two near-human aliens, the Kafer and the Sung, were described as monocultures.  Now the Kafer were truly wierd in that their adrenaline response boosted intelligence and not physical power, which meant they were only really sapient in times of stress.  This is great, truly alien psychology.  Unfortunately the game had a split personality over function - a sizable chunk was oriented around military shipping, and another almost by implication, around the planet on which the war with the Kafer is being conducted.  It was not clear how the Kafer were to be used, nor was the military game much fleshed out in any procedural sense.  What ther game was About was unclear, and it probably would have been better off to focus fully on the war in the manner of Heavy Gear.

Jovian Chronicles, anyone?  Near future setting, no aliens wrinkly-headed or otherwise.  Good developement of early human space expansion, pretty ships, good science.  However again the strong military theme is virtually overriding and yet play is not meaningfully structured to make use of this basis; furthermore, the single campaign game/sample of play provided is set very much in the intelligence world, occurs on one location, and makes very little use of ships except for a stock combat.  Especially as this is one of the few settings with significant travel times and no magic propulsion systems, the absence of a game mode specifically dealing with shipboard life is quite striking.

SLA Industries is an interesting case.  An excellently drawn setting, excusably mono-cultural aliens (although this is not a big part of the game), clear sense of purpose of play which is mission-based troubleshooting for The Man.  Let down by an excessively detailed combat system that was mighty slow; also let down by too many hints without enough detail to back them up regarding the politics of the world.  Nevertheless one of the better works IMO; I consider it a heartbreaker because ther system was so clunky and did not show signs of being really tailored to the world, although it did show some research.  This is clearly a "better cyberpunk", and would have been well served by some sort of structured mission system.

I have just been here to see if there was anything I had forgotten, and the list of SFRPG's is surprisingly short:
http://dmoz.org/Games/Roleplaying/Genres/Science_Fiction/

[jc_madden]

Jovian Chronicles, anyone?  Near future setting, no aliens wrinkly-headed or otherwise.  Good development of early human space expansion, pretty ships, good science.  However again the strong military theme is virtually overriding and yet play is not meaningfully structured to make use of this basis; furthermore, the single campaign game/sample of play provided is set very much in the intelligence world, occurs on one location, and makes very little use of ships except for a stock combat.  Especially as this is one of the few settings with significant travel times and no magic propulsion systems, the absence of a game mode specifically dealing with shipboard life is quite striking.

This one I can comment on.  As far as I'm concerned the problem with many SFrpgs is their broadness.  The fact that Jovian Chronicles was basically a narrow setting and a rule set specific to that setting should have been a perfect match.  The lack of rules dealing with shipboard life is partly due to the fact that the game centers around our solar system ONLY , travel time is about 3-6 months for Earth to Jupiter (as I recall) and is in suspended animation.  Furthermore since all of the action and campaign are set purely around the Jovian station the travel back and forth should remain in the realm of Deus ex machina.    So now the question is:  Is this truly a Heartbreaker?  If yes then why what makes it so?  

We seem to be stumbling over the definition of the term and how it is used.  First of all, Ron coined the FHB term; his insights into the definition of the SFHB should logically be given priority.  Second, arguments here in this thread are starting to eschew way to much on the side of personal opinion .  Granted this is all very new, but the first thing is first as a community if we're going to coin a phrase and use it, lets have our ducks in a row shall we?  Someone please, in clear terms for the love of god define the term and lets stick to it.  After we've done THAT let's examine the original question posed by this thread and that is:  Where have these games failed that has made them heartbreakers?  What if any prominent failures can be identified and corrected/prevented?

[Marco]

I really do not think this is helping.  There is not one thing being argued here - there are people discussing their views.  If you object to a view, then please point to whose view you are objecting rather than just saying "here".  The issue of whether or not the hHB classification is strictly appropriate is not a big deal IMO.

Okay, I think you may have a point here--I was responding to the idea that people were misunderstanding things, rather than disagreeing. But, yeah, I don't want to unnecessarily argue things because I happen not to like the term.

-Marco

[b_bankhead]

Response to comments on Breaking the Heart of the Universe

I have found that threads on the Forge, like some exotic cheese, take time to mature. I have found it instructive to sit back a while and watch what develops. Often is can be best to respond to developing themes rather than firing back like an action hero at each and every individual comment. This is especially true with a thread as long as this one.

One theme I should deal with straightaway is the matter of science fiction games based on specific worlds such as Dune, Farscape etc.

It may be instructive to reveiw the description of a heartbreaker.

1/ The are deriviative a very narrow category of science fiction concepts.
2/ They are derivative of a narrow base of gaming concepts.
3/ They are produced with great naivete' about the marketplace.
4/ They are produced as a labor of love by amatuers.

The overwhelming majority of the 'specific worlds' fall into the category of major licensed properties. The amount of Lawyers, Guns and Money necessary to land the license to do (say) the Star Wars rpg places the maker in a realm completely outside criterion 4.  Also since they are attempting to attach themselves to a property of proven value, they certainly don't fall under criterion 3. What is a major licensed property? Any movie you might see in your local multiplex, any TV show  you might see on network or major cable, any bestselling book. Any character owned by a major comic publisher. (The Albedo license certainly isn't in this category)

As to the matter of Star Frontiers, this game can never be a heartbreaker. Come on people how can any game produced by the then General Motors of the rpg 'industry' meet criterion 4?


Now lets deal with something I think has produced some misunderstanding about my essay. Sometimes I mix comments on games that are manifest non-heartbreakers with those that are.

In my opinion just because a game is a non-sheartbreaker doesn't mean it can't make many of the same mistakes in either design or marketing that heartbreaker typically makes. Star Frontiers is an excellent example.
In my area Star Frontiers came and went as a phenomenon in a couple of  years at best. Reason? The game came out during the era of 'Traveler ascendant' .  People looked at SF (as did I) and saw Traveler lite, and couldnt see a single reason to stop playing Traveler to play it. (anybody who wants to play Traveler lite can just play Traveler with fewer rules)  Star Frontiers made the first three heartbreaker mistakes without being a heartbreaker at all.

Now I I do not mean to suggest that I have actually owned all the heartbreakers in the list. I owned about a third of them at various times, have actually had a chance to at least look through about 2/3 of them (including the semi-legendary 'Reich Star'), just played a game or two in a couple more. I've read so much rpg stuff I'm likeI can spot a heartbreaker from its back cover blurbs and table of contents.

Now one area in which your comments certainly have changed my mind is the area of SFRPG combat, I was wrong it, isn't gamist, it's simulationist to the core. What they are trying to simulate aren't science fiction stories but science fiction wargames.I realize now that I have been fooled, what I mistook to be gamism was really simulationism in pursuit of a wargame experience!  
In SF wargames resistance to black hole bazookas is based on cm. of unbreakium. In SF stories it's based on what Prime Time Adventures calls 'Screen Prescence'.... THAT"S why its so hard to kill Captain Kirk with a phaser.

I should also comment on the matter of 'real' science in SF rpgs. I firmly believe that the 'hardness' of an sfrpg is almost soley a matter of color and group creative agenda. After all the ability of a game to sustain a particular level of 'hardness' is ultimatley bounded by the level of scienfic knowledge the group posseses. Therefore it isn't something that can really be instantiated in the rpg design. Its amazing what people are willing to accept as 'hard'. For example Traveler lived for years on it's image as the 'hardest' sfrpg even though Travelertech had a laundry list of things that went against science-as-we-know-it .
In literary SF, so long as the implications are well worked out,there is a gentlemen's agreement not to press to hard as to exactly what is under the hood of many inventions and discoveries. 'Hard' SF is in fact a specialized enough subgenre to need a name of it's own, and even a surpising number of supposedly 'hard' sf writers call upon the gentlemens agreement a lot.  Larry Niven is supposed to be among the 'nut and bolts' crowd, but really, how do those magic teleportation booths of his work, and what are those puppeteer ships REALLY made of.?

'Marco' seems very concerned that I'm misusing the heartbreaker label to mearly diss the genre. I don't know what to say except I don't have much affection for the dominant approach rpgs have taken to SF. If that makes my use of the term doubtful then I guess I'll have to live with that. Perhaps he'll see more affection in part 2.

Finally I agree with the consensus that a weak 'how to play' is the downfall of too many SF games. In fact a major factor of what I regard as a successful design is a well considered HtP. More on this later.

Thanx for all the thought and responses to my original essay. You will certainly affect the final article version as well as the upcoming parts.  Part 2 is as yet untitled and will deal with what I regard as successful SF designs.